Sony RX100 one of 50 'best inventions' of 2012 says TIME Magazine

TIME Magazine has included the Sony Cyber-shot RX100 in its list of the 50 'best inventions' of 2012. TIME's Techland's blog called the RX100 a 'huge leap' in the trend towards smaller and more capable digital cameras, thanks to its 'innovative design and 1-in sensor'. The list of 50 inventions is organized by cost, from 'priceless' up to '2.5 billion' and also includes self-inflating tires, the Curiosity Mars rover, and LiquiGlide, a microscopic non-slip coating.

Time Magazine has included the Sony Cyber-shot RX100 in its list of the 50 best inventions of 2012, due to its 'innovative design' and CX-format 1in sensor. Picture: Dan Forbes for TIME

TIME Magazine's full description, as posted on its Techlands blog is as follows:

'Digital cameras have been getting smaller and more capable every year, but that trend took a huge leap forward in 2012 with the Sony RX100, which bridges the gap between point-and-shoots and pro-quality digital SLRs. Sony’s innovative design and 1-in. (2.5 cm) sensor allow the camera to take flawless photos even though it’s 20% slimmer than your average digital SLR—small enough to fit in your pocket.'

When we reviewed the RX100, earlier this year, we were very impressed. What do you think of the RX100's inclusion in Time's list? Let us know in the comments.

Comments

This would be the BEST compact ever, if they upgraded the firmware to use flash compensation in auto modes. The flash performance just sucks. Yeah, pinching the flash helps a little, but its not a perfect outcome and its not very ergonomic to pinch. Just fix the compensation to do well in indoor situations or party situations. This camera would be unbeatable.

It is a good camera, probably the best WITHIN ITS SIZE RANGE, but if it had had a better lens it would have been a great one.

Anyone saying that it outclasses either the G1 X or APS C or full frame sensors really does not have a clue. But then it shouldn't really be expected to, and without these silly comparisons the whole thread would be much more informative.

I am constantly surprised when the fanboy behaviour for compacts like this outstrips the fanboy behaviour for DSLR systems, but it always seems to work on a more immature level. After all, people who haver bought into a system have a lot to lose, changing brands in compacts is as simple as buying one camera. Maybe the difference is the relative professionalism of the two groups.

As an RX-100 owner I will admit what it does, it does well. I own a mid-sized DSLR, and it's satisfying to use the RX-100 just in the discreet difference in size. I can't have my DSLR with me all the time. But I can seriously have my RX-100 with me all the time wherever I go, moreso than a G1X for cheaper.

Gives me more time to just enjoy myself and take memorable photos and video. Can't agonize over much more than that!

"Anyone saying that it outclasses either the G1 X or APS C or full frame sensors really does not have a clue"

It does not outclass the APS-C, or FF cameras. But it outclass the Canon G1X for surehttp://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/812|0/(brand)/Sony/(appareil2)/769|0/(brand2)/Canon

I don't get why some people continue to compare the RX-100 against cameras like the G1X or DSLRs. That's not what it's target customer is. The target customer is the photographer that wants better pictures from a small bodied camera. Possibly the kind of person that has a large high-end camera but doesn't or can't take it around with them all of the time.

I can't stand Sony as a company. I stopped buying their products a long time ago but I had to swallow my pride and buy this camera because it was the only one that did exactly what I wanted. I can't carry my 5DMkII with me everywhere nor do I want to but I can put this in my jean pocket without much hassle and take above average pictures.

No Argieramos it is not just at high ISO. The people who say such comparisons are not fair to the RX100 on size may have a point. The claims that it somehow "beats" the G1 X for untrammelled IQ do not.

You are confusing sensor measurements with images. Never a good idea. A film camera was/is never only the film you put in it.

Small sensors bring compromises. Small sensors in small bodies bring even more. For a Zeiss lens, the RX100's lens is very disappointing. Dealing with the physics issue with excessive barrel distortion which you then process out is not an ideal way of getting the best image, and reduces the quality of the picture. The edge performance of the lens is nothing to write home about anyway, particularly at anything over f3.5.

The RX100 is a bunch of compromises that suits some. It won't be enough for others. And if you want to make a point, SHOW us. Anyone can cherry pick magazine articles. You can even find some that prove people have been abducted by aliens.

Don't waste your time MarcLee. He's trolling that's all. When you've spent as many years on these forums as I have, you get better at realizing the kind of behaviour and personality that drives so many real photographers away to other forums.

And we have lost a great many of the best and most helpful over the years, only to be replaced with attention-seeking kids like this.

for me a more than questionable decision - one of the best inventions - because laughing Chickenthe HX9V overlooking the excellent video mode -24 - 480mm - In-Cam- Super Steady- In-Cam-Auto-ND filter - an innovation that has been and is still the number 1 for compact video movies

You know who is just a gear head, and not even own an rx100, anybody can borrow one then shoot some and upload some and said I got one. From how's he respect and easily laugh at people's name, he just don't have the qualities to give you an quality comments here, all is just blindly defensed of his little un pocketable G. Yes, maybe that little G have better IQ, So? if IQ was his only concern why not just go for an Sigma DP2 Merrill?

We want an all round best pocket camera and Sony did it! And I think any brand build one like this people still will bought it, but unfortunately this is not made by the brand his like, so he is very down, sad, and so angry to shoot people who said rx100 is the best.

Grow up. Really. Some people in this world shoot more than one camera brand. I guess you are not one who believes this possible.

I have said over and over again that this is the best camera of its size, but its size involves compromises that zealots like yourself refuse to admit. Good sensor. Nice compactness. Weak lens. NOT the second coming of Jesus Christ. And that's the fact.

Kindergarden? Thats a strong word coming from someone who don't even shoot RAW. Owning a G1X and RX100 at the same time prove your stupidity. And for the one who keep comparing his G1X to the RX100 shows the you barely know photography. No reason to own a camera that big if there are cameras like NEX who can give out much better IQ. G1X just don't make sense lol

GaryJP "The G1X and the RX100 are NOT in the same range, and certainly not in the same class"

It's funny that you are now saying that. You were the one who keeps bashing the RX100 and keeps saying G1X better. Don't put me on your shoes. You are passing that on me because you now realized owning the G1X is stupid while having the RX100, right (if you own the RX100)? That camera is bigger and more expensive than the NEX C3 that gives MUCH better IQ. Pictures? Funny, I was about to ask you that because you are the one who is claiming that own almost every camera brand. Can you prove to me that you own the RX100 and G1X? Next time, spend more time to practice shooting RAW, and stop spending most of your time trolling around the forum. It is really showing you barely know photography. lol

GaryJP "NEX cameras, which I have considered, to get decent images with them you still need DSLR size lenses"

Bwuahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!Nyehehahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!Wahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!Sorry, but I can't help but to laugh lol. Your comment proves that you are such an amateur when it comes to photography. You do know "lens size" does not mean better pictures, right? Just like the Carl Zeiss 24mm 1.8 for NEX produce better image compare to Samyang 24mm for Alpha.

You know, anyone reading these posts, aware of your lack of images or background,your seven day posting history under this pseudonym, and your general childishness cannot help but be fully aware of who is the noob here.

As for lens size, I am talking about good glass. You won't find many who accuse Sony of having great glass. Not on the RX100 or anywhere else.

You are nothing but a troll. Really, take your attention-hungry games elsewhere. You are of that tiresome breed that thinks persuading anyone with experience to give you any attention at all is a sign of success. Chip on your shoulder much?

Have you EVER actually taken a photograph? Do you own ANY camera? I seriously doubt it. Anyone can look at my galleries, here and elsewhere, and see mine, as well as my posting history and experience. And see what cameras they were shot on.

Go back beneath your bridge, and allow the grown ups to talk photography. If you are over fifteen, life cheated you.

"As for lens size, I am talking about good glass."So good glass means bigger lens? lol. You wouldn't use the "lens size" term if you were really talking about good glass. That's a mess up excuse.

So here you are, making such a long comment but the content are mostly insult towards me. You are trying to change the topic. And do not question my photography skill because you are the one who thinks "lens size" affects IQ, and thinks NEX needs DSLR size lens to take a decent pictures, but at the same time praising the G1X IQ. NEX with kitlens takes much better IQ than G1X mind you.

Your level of mental maturity is a puzzle to me, and I would hate to think it is symptomatic of Sony fanboys in general. Fortunately I do not think it is.

The images that YOU presented as claiming to show great performance do not. It's as simple as that. And that provides a perfect example of your level of judgement. And your lack of comprehension of the very clearly stated facts that people do shoot RAW remains puzzling. Remedial education?

If you bother to read people's sigs you will very often find links to their galleries, both here and elsewhere. I note that you are still talking the talk instead of walking the walk, and have not one image to your credit.

It's saddening how this is ALWAYS the case with the most trolling posters.

he can't accept that RX100 is a better camera than G1X and it easily fit inside the pocket. He said he own the RX100 and still think that G1X is pocketable. I like to see him trying to put that camera inside his tight jeans lol

By the way, look at those two pictures I link to carefully. Zoom in on the faces. The G1X image - which is already cropped - is not appreciable noisier at ISO 3200 than the RX100 is at ISO 800, and the colour depth is better.

The trade-off is acceptable to some - and to me on some occasions - for the convenience, but it's there.

And Hans, I have no problem with the idea that the RX100 delivers better IQ than either the S100 or the Fuji X10. I just know from direct experience the G1 X does better. All cameras have their foibles. Canon included.

" it's no DSLR beater and it's no G1 X beater, as long as IQ is your primary consideration." Trying a little too hard to add value to a prior purchase? Anyways, Why are you comparing G1 X or a DSLR to the RX100. They are not pocket-able.

All cameras and indeed many electronics are about compromises and priorities. Rx100's priorities seems to be 1. Pocket ability 2. Price (explains the lens quality) 3. IQ and so on. With that order of priorities it is the best camera out there. G1-X obviously have other priorities (ugly been one of them), so no point comparing apple and oranges. Seriously just be happy with what you have and stop trolling. Now I'm gonna go check on who is winning the presidency.

Burger, I am comparing because others are comparing and talking nonsesne about there being no need for DSLRs, blah, blah, blah. And their comparison is bs.

I agree with you that the RX100 is probably the best camera of its size. That's why I have one. But that does not make it the best compromise between IQ and size for everyone. At least more reasonable posters like you see the compromises in the RX100, including that not so great lens. Likely the DPReview reviewers do too. Oh, and if you want to examine trolls, check the posting and photographic history of our argie friend.

Oh,and from your Cameralabs article: "Ultimately the big sensor is the G1 X's key selling point, and its ability to essentially deliver the same quality as many EOS DSLRs in a relatively smaller package make it a popular companion for many photographers."

Note that he does not believe the RX100 does this.

I use both. You do not. You actually have no evidence of using any camera at all. You are talking from the wrong orifice.

GaryJP, you do know that they determine the "IQ" score based on the best of the camera can produce? Not for specific high ISO you are showing to me right now. Just like the D800 gets the highest IQ score, but lose to D300s in high ISO. Do you know that in low ISO, RX100 is said to outresolve a FF 21mp Canon? It is not surprising that G1X takes the high ISO. It has bigger sensor and fewer MP.

GaryJP "And I honestly cannot believe you take Snapsort seriously. One day you will find out why." I posted the snapsort link, but highlighted the "DXoMark" test score. Did I even mention anything about what Snapsort put on there? Did I even brag about Snapsort declaring RX100 the winner? No, right? lol.. You failed lolOf course I don't take them seriously. They are known to be biased towards Nikon. But what they have on G1X vs RX100 info are all correct, right?

GaryJP "G1 X's key selling point, and its ability to essentially deliver the same quality as many EOS DSLRs"

The old NEX 3 surpassed the Canon's top aps DSLR, the 7D in terms of IQ. So there is nothing special about the G1X matching the EOS. As a matter of fact, Canon DSLR are below Sony specially Nikon in terms of IQ.

MarcLee "Is English not your first language? I can think of no other reason why you cannot understand the words "in its JPGs".

Did I even say anything about JPEG? I said you don't shoot RAW for you to complain about Noise Reduction. Talks about English language lol.

"If 3200 is acceptable to you, your standards are lower than mine, and way lower than the photo agencies I know. That's fine. It happens."

MarcLee "Are these "not" acceptable to you?RX100 ISO 3200http://www.flickr.com/photos/hannes_frick/7621901108/http://www.flickr.com/photos/laughingsquid/7611764898/http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanal/7597083286/You see, the issue is not about my standard when it comes to photography, it's about you not knowing HOW TO SHOOT PROPERLY. So yea, you go to school of photography first before you talk to me lol

Who cares if YOU said anything about jpgs? I DID. And you were too dense to notice. You seem to have the same comprehension problems reading other people's posts, perfectly clear to everyone else, too.

Ever heard the saying "all mouth and no trousers" ?

Suits you to a t.

And no, they are not acceptable to me at full size. The cat and wine pictures in particular are in focus almost nowhere, have had enough noise reduction applied (whether in camera OR from RAW) to have taken on an almost posterised look in places, and show the awful edge performance of the lens. You can just about get away with them at the smallest viewing size.

But if they are acceptable to you I am not in the least surprised this is all you ask for from a camera.

That's right. You did. I didn't. Why are you getting all mad at me then? You're wierd lol.

"And no, they are not acceptable to me at full size"

Before anything else, I have two question for you.1) What is your definition of "full size"?2) What do you do with your images after taking them? (Or after post process)Let's put your knowledge to the test :))

"The cat and wine pictures in particular are in focus almost nowhere"

Uhm, we are talking about noise in high ISO? And I guess you forgot that we are talking about a picture in ISO 3200, taken with a pocket camera.

"have taken on an almost POSTERIZED look in places, and show the awful edge performance of the lens. You can just about get away with them at the smallest viewing size."

Not only you don't know how to shoot properly, you also don't know how to identify the flaws relevant to our topic lol.

Oh, and argieramos, I will repeat an earlier post that you seemed to have a problem understanding. It's a three sentence post.

The first two:

"For me, the noise levels at anything above ISO 800 on the RX100 in RAW are simply not acceptable. They may not matter so much to others."

Now. Can you see there a reference to RAW? Most people could. Most children with a reading age above six could. You seem to have a problem.

And here's the third sentence:

"The reason Sony has such intense noise reduction in its JPGs is because they need it."

Do you catch the reference there to JPGs? I ask because you seem to be having some problem reading and understanding three simple declarative English sentences. Please note, the three sentences compare and contrast RAW and JPG from direct experience.

Now, you may actually not understand three simple sentences, or you may be pretending not to understand three simple sentences. I'll leave it to others to decide which reflects best on you.

No denying in it. The RX100 is an amazing camera, but I won't buy it as long the lens does not improve. Please make it a little bit wider e.g. 24mm and faster at the tele end and I'll buy it as my 2nd camera.

"When we reviewed the RX100, earlier this year, we were very impressed. What do you think of the RX100's inclusion in Time's list? Let us know in the comments. " very impressed but why no gold award? ;-)

It's the best pocket camera of all time, as far the image quality is concerned, confirmed by dxomark. It also has fastest auto focus, at least much faster than Canon S100. There is no shutter lag either, as it has electronic first shutter curtain.

I have had one for 3 months now and I agree with DPreviews Silver award. Its the best in the class (class leader) from a technological point of view, but it's not as fun to use as it could be. It lacks some soul or something. It's designed by Engineers to be a monster, not by Photographers to be their toy.

No matter how much people complain, it won't change the fact that its the best camera on this size. Sony saw an empty segment on the market and filled it and they succeded. Where was canon or nikon for all these years?

Why people are so afraid of the change? Why people are scared shitless about it? People said the same thing about SLT system too but it works out justs as fine. If you don't like it just don't buy it but respect the ones who buy it because they dared something you could not, went ahead and bought it.

If they believe in one thing from one side for their whole life, then if something come along from another side and which is better than whatever that side they have believed in can produce, they feel scared.Because if they admit that new thing is better, it would mean they have been dumb ass in the wrong faithfulness for their whole life. In a state of denial, they would attack the new thing for any flaws so that they can feel a sense of comfort that what they hold dearly is better.

You'd be amazed how many zealots for the RX100 have been Sony boys all along, even before it came out. (Or maybe you would not).

In general "fanboyism" is over-rated as a motivation, particularly with regard to compacts. Anyone with money can go out and buy any camera they think suits them better without having to worry about an entire system, or having to sell old lenses.

Best of 2012?It's small size exacts too high a price in poor ergonomics for pocketability. as well as a small sensor packed w/ too much Mp exacts a price in poor IQ; that's a double compromise, just so one lugs less than a full dSLR in hopes of having good flexible IQ:

if anyone hopes to it could compete w/ dSLR/SLTs/NEX, it would only fare well against those closer to low end budget plasticky models or other 'compact/ergonomic' compromises (Sony's own models, amongst a few other low end or 'tiny' mirrorless ones).

Ah, and as with the six mile link up there, what you should really be showing the folks are thousands, or hundreds of thousands or hundreds of millions of photos that wound never be, if people could not carry their RX100s with them.

That is what the camera is made to do, not to enter the ring with 5DMKIII.

Nothing worse than someone who thinks they know it all, and then uses unrealistic comparisons to back it up.

The four cameras you chose are not even in the same realistic market segments. One could, perhaps, argue the G1X and RX100 are in a close market segment, but even that is a stretch considering the RX100 weighs half that of the G1X, is 2.8 times smaller in terms of volume, and costs 30% less.

my point is, an RX100 will only eclipse smaller sensor digicams for most part, and hardly be more portable than a G1X that readily matches/rivals most dSLRs the RX100 can't come close to for IQ.

thus, the G1X is by far, very portable, and IQ that cannot be matched by any smaller 1" (or smaller) sensor compacts.

exceptions may exist with mirrorless systems where they can interchange for wider/longer lenses, but only flat primes may be faster (which is better for AF) and more compact, but 'zoomless' as configured.

the relevance of showing a 5DMkIII for IQ is that, that is the minimum 'exemplar' for dSLRs, and G1X minimum 'exemplar' for prosumer digicams (compact or subcompact size differences don't affect portability significantly when they have integrated zooms; bar 'super-zooms'). and the point is, the 'bar' has already been set quite high, all those that fall short could hardly ever be called the 'best' unless they are unique (just 1) in their own size class.

What I find strange is that people keep saying it makes the G1 X or even DSLRs redundant, and then five seconds later saying: "It's not fair to compare it with the G1 X or DSLRs." If people didn't make the dumb comparisons, other people would not knock them down.

The lens on the G1 X is not slower than that on the RX100 IF you care about sharpness across the picture. The G1 X ranges from f2.8 at the wide end. If you care about sharpness, the RX100 lens isn't that great at anything wider than f2.8 either. At f1.8 it's pretty crap. At full tele (a little longer than the RX100 at 112 mm) the G1 X has f 5.8. My RX100 has 4.9. at 100mm equivalent. And the optics are better in the G1 X. The RX100 is a good sensor with a not so good lens.

I just had 7 cameras in a row with centering error in my hands. I cannot believe this. With 6 it was the upper right corner, one with lower right. the sony service-guy says noone knows about this. now I am waiting for a new delivery, and hopefully "made in japan"!

The RX100 is good enough that I will be leaving my dslr at home on my vacation. This will be the first time I havent brought at least two cameras (one big one pocket) on a vaction since I got into digital 10 years ago.

'Invention' is and always has been an acceptable term to use when referring to a product or device, whether it's an entirely new concept or an innovative approach on something existing.

Time's 'best inventions' series has always been primarily based around products rather than patents. There are too many people on this site eager to jump onto the negativity bandwagon. And over semantics? Really?

A product is generally not called an invention. It is quite common to call a patent an invention though. But a product is seldom patented. Maybe some part of the product. Maybe the lens. Lens constructions are usually protected with patents. So - maybe the lens is an invention? But I doubt it is one of the 50 best this year.

And yes - the whole debate is silly. But so are generally awards. So why not answer silliness with more silliness?

Maybe it's a high-end camera but I like my fotos on the go, I don't need to wait to get home & upload my fotos, hope there's a wifi on this Sony RX100, so I can share it with my fone then upload to Facebook in a just a click of a button....I like compact camera with wifi, anyone can help me suggest which latest compact camera is best to buy with wifi ....

But he's correct basically, and I'd say it's what most people think of when they hear "design". The camera *is* just some random P&S that happens to have a large sensor. I'd much rather have a "design" that is meant to be USED, with proper ergonomics and grippy surfaces, some buttons, etc. But this is Sony. Like most companies they're more interested in image and apple-copycating than actual proper, well thought-out human-usable design.

The "Invention" they are talking about on tha magazine is the "Class" not the actual "Machine" of course pocketable cameras, larger sensors been around a while but a 1" sensor in a pockatable camera is a new class itself, there is simply no other manufacturer who does this at the moment.

and no, Nikon-1 is not a pockatable camera.

and again, peopel who wanted viewfinder and hotsoe, you are in need of a differant class camera, not this.

The majority of the posters here don't read, they just... well you know.Like some here understand and what has been written far, far below is that the RX 100 IS an invention. NOT as a camera but because of what BIG inventive accomplishment is inside! The mechanics and physics inside the RX100 retractable lens tube is very inventive, complex and clever. You must be a mechanical/optical engineer to fully understand how big an accomplishment it is to fit the 1"sensor, OSS, lenses, zoom mechanics INSIDE the retractable diameter lens tube. In operation the 2 stage lens tube is 72 mm long, collapsed only 34 mm in which all parts fold, slide and fit neatly together...

argieramos, keep trying to convince yourself on IQ. And then being surprised when other people are getting better images than you. I never object to people using less good equipment. Makes them less competitive. Most sane RX100 users here are admitting the G1 X has better IQ but then saying it's not a fair comparison. You, on the other hand, live in your own world.

One major difference between you and me - there are no doubt many others - is that I use both cameras. You do not. Another major difference is that I am a longtime poster here on many cameras. You joined two days ago just to troll this thread and post puerile insults.

GaryJP, if you think G1X has better IQ than the RX100, then your claim about owning the RX100 is nothing but a lie. Do you want to challenge me posting our sources which camera produce better IQ? Cry all you want RX100 is a better camera than your crappy G1x and that is a proven fact

Are you five? Even most of the RX100 fans here know you are talking bs. They just say that it's not a valid comparison because the G1X is a bigger camera. And, troll that you are, (you have had this posting name for all of four days now) you don't even take five seconds to research the galleries of the person you are talking to.

Now how about you post some of YOUR pictures? If you even own either camera.

Clearly the Time magazine "Best 50 Inventions of 2012" served it's purpose - to sell cameras. Judging from the fact that the RX100 has received the top clicks on DPR even though it's review was posted awhile ago, the Time article did it's job quite well. But it's simply not accurate to call a P&S digital camera an "invention" in 2012. But that is the sad state of the consumerism that drives media.

Marike6 and GaryJP, these two idiot are hopeless. One who doesnt know what he is talking about, and the other one claiming that he has almost all camera brand meaning he don't know how to shoot properly because none of his camera serve him well. Nyahaha!!

Fanboy kindergarten out already argie? Cameras are tools. So are some fanboys. Like EVERY person who trash talks other shooters, you have not a single image in your gallery. It's really predictable how this is ALWAYS the case.

Oh dear oh dear, I've posted links to images shot on both cameras, all processed from RAW. Let's see. How many pictures have you posted four-day Argie?

And I can tell you another issue that RAW files reveal in the RX100, that the lens distortion - uncorrected by software - is far greater than in the G1 X, and probably partly responsible for its softness at the edges.

Capture One, at least, does not yet have a lens correction profile for it. But even a correction profile won't help that edge softness. It's easier to correct in Lightroom. But again it's soft.

It is not an invention !!! it is just a product...that probably uses several inventions...camera was an invention a long time ago, it is credited to Ibn al-Haytham (965-1039). The first CCD sensor was invented in 1969, that was a great invention ! RX100 one a the best 50 inventions of 2012 ??? let me LOL ! TIME magazine is probably not aware of what scientists are doing...maybe TIME journalists should have a look here: http://www.nobelprize.org/ for example...

To me, this is very good news. It was a gamble. Would people realize that a big sensor is desirable thing. Or should we just go with the megapixels. I honestly never thought this camera would take off. But with publicity like this it might very well do. Which I applaud.

right, because everybody I know uses 100mm equivalent primes and nothing else. The difference at 100mm is small, the difference at 28mm is huge. You know, 28mm? They sell primes for that. They sell a lot of em.

People don't take cat pictures at telephoto. They take them indoors, at wide, with poor light.

The plane of focus for those two cameras is different. You aren't seeing a difference in IQ, just focal clarity (the Sony is way forward in that scene - DPR ought to fix that). With both cameras focused equally the RX100 pretty much stomps all over the smaller sensor compacts.

Yeah, but I can't get the XZ-2 in time for my Disney trip next week. So, do I order the RX100 for Disney and send it back afterwards when the XZ-2 comes out? Seems kinda sleezy! Maybe I'll just lug my FZ200 around instead.

I doubt that is the case. ISO100 images from Sony look quite a lot better. Assuming DPR takes the studio shots with cameras tripoded, focusing of the two RX100's shots (with ISO100 and IS01600) is the same.

The only explanation why RX100's ISO1600 shot is so poor is the excessive noise & NR taking place.

No offense but do you have vision problems or an extremely poor monitor? The focal plane differences between these cameras is plainly evident at all ISOs including base. At 100, the feather in the RX100 shot is blurry while the P7700 is much sharper. Look at the playing card in the back - HUGE difference. Again: This is a FOCAL discrepancy - the RX100 sensor walks all over the P7700 at higher ISO in terms of noise characteristics. Compare the shadow box/spools of thread at 1600+, especially RAW (a better test of actual sensor performance, less processing applied in camera). The RX100 has a per pixel noise advantage AND a MP advantage. No contest.

Evidence that Sony must spend a fortune in advertising with this magazine.A compact camera with a zoom the new Canon 1GX is a leap above any other cameraOlympus Pen series cameras, with Nikon Canon Pentax etc all have dust issues and they a shutter protecting the sensor, with Olympus the sensor is fully exposed yet they do not have that issue due to there patented dust reduction system. this is a leap in technology.what about these new lenses on the market 18~200, 18~270 or 18~300 even though they are not pro lenses, they are pretty good quality, this would have been impossible to manufacture several years ago.all the above should be above the Sony.

The 1GX also has a significantly higher MSRP, a slow lens that results in worse DoF control, check with Camera Lab's tests if you don't believe me. Dog slow AF that it has been panned for at multiple review sites, and the added bonus of being nearly 3x larger than the Sony RX100 if you compare them by volume displaced.

The G1 X (please note the correct name before trashing a camera) lens ranges from f2.8 at the wide end. If you care about sharpness, the RX100 lens isn't that great at anything wider than f2.8 either.

At f1.8 it's pretty crap.

At full tele (which is a little longer than the RX100 at 112 mm) the G1 X has f 5.8. My RX100 has 4.9. at 100mm equivalent. And the lens is better in the G1 X. Not only that, given the larger sensor size I see more room for zooming in in PP.

Autofocus is a bit slow, but not as slow as reviewers still using the "half-oress" technique in their one day of testing seem to think. But then it depends what you're shooting. G1 X depth of field control is excellent. See some of the pictures taken with it if you have any doubt. And, for some of us, IQ trumps size.

My RX100 beats it when I am doing street photography or want instant shutter response, but for IQ for a good typical touristic scene, and for lowlight (which I do a lot), the G1 X wins hands down.

@GaryJP, so is the case with nikon D800 also ie no one asks if you have to put camera in jeans pocket, yet there are people who want small and compact camera instead of d800. Nice photos could be taken with almost any camera so this point really does not count much here.

I am so tired of hearing that " fit's in your pocket " line. Any camera that I have had that can actually fit in my pocket never spent any time there. Let me see... I am taking a hike, let me get my camera out of my pocket and take a picture. Now let me put it back in my pocket and then take it out again and again. Not for me. I don't even like putting my wallet in my pocket. I wouldn't even keep a camera that was the pocket size equivalent of the 5dMKIII in my pocket. Just not a big deal. I'm not saying that the Sony is not a great camera just that the " fit's in your pocket " thing is overdone. Most people have cell phones in their pockets that are adequate enough for simple things. I would rather have a more capable camera the size of a G12, XZ-1 or M-4/3rds that I would have around my wrist ready for the shot.

These numbers like 1" or Micro 4/3rds or 2/3" or 1/2.3" are all standards based. I will admit that it's an ancient and outdated system that used to refer to the outside diameter of a vacuum tube instead of the size of the sensor it contained, and it should have been changed years ago. However it is used on pretty much all "small" sized sensors micro 4/3rds and down, across all brands, so it's not like Sony just pulled 1" out of their marketing department and chose to lie about it.

I slip it in along with a piece lint-free microfiber cloth that I got free with my eyewear. That solves the pocket-lint problem and still leaves the camera more freely accessible than from a camera case.

Sony does something new for digital photography and immediately everybody starts talking crap about it without actually using, or even seeing it... unbelievable...

Well, Canon on the other hand is basically selling you the same crap over and over again for years and people praise it. S90, S95, S100, S100... I owned 2 of these cameras, they just had "Icing" options upgraded over the years, no major improvement over image quality etc. etc...

And no, Nikon-1 is not a pocket camera... go try to fit it in your pocket, it just wont.

Now you'll see how canon and nikon will follow this trend, like they did on NEX series...

or just continue hating, it's your loss really. No matter how much you hate, Sony RX-100 is the one and only camera in it's class and it rocks! 1" sensor in a pockatable camera is a new thing, get over it.

PS: I own EOS 60D, S100 & RX-100. And yes, that S100 is already on e-bay.

It isnt. The list from TIME Magazine contains not only inventions. Its a mixture of things they find impressive. The name of the award is questionable also. How to find the 50 best inventions of a year? Thats very hard. Most inventions (e.g. patents) are very simplistic.

This camera is having the same impact that the Canon G10 did when it was introduced. Each has their flaws, BUT, each introduced/introduce a new dimension to compact point and shoots that never existed before. Well done.

If you go by volume the G1x is nearly 3x larger than the RX100, it has a slow lens which results in worse DoF control, extremely poor minimum focus distance, and has been panned for it's terrible auto focus performance by multiple review sites. And "Near APS-C", equates to slightly larger than micro 4/3rds. And all of this comes at a significantly higher MSRP than the Sony.Camera.

The G1 X (please note the correct name before trashing a camera) lens ranges from f2.8 at the wide end. If you care about sharpness, the RX100 lens isn't that great at anything wider than f2.8 either.

At f1.8 it's pretty crap.

At full tele (which is a little longer than the RX100 at 112 mm) the G1 X has f 5.8. My RX100 has 4.9. at 100mm equivalent. And the lens is better in the G1 X. Not only that, given the larger sensor size I see more room for zooming in in PP.

Autofocus is a bit slow, but not as slow as reviewers still using the "half-oress" technique in their one day of testing seem to think. But then it depends what you're shooting. G1 X depth of field control is excellent. See some of the pictures taken with it if you have any doubt. And, for some of us, IQ trumps size.

My RX100 beats it when I am doing street photography or want instant shutter response, but for IQ for a good typical touristic scene, and for lowlight (which I do a lot), the G1 X wins.

I am quite sad about the negative atmosphere here . We, as a photographic community should be happy that one of our tools got this award.

It also shows that people who doesn't own it get defensive quickly, unsecure about their own choice.Try it just for one day and you will see ...

p.s. yes I own rx100 and it changed my photography quite a lot...Bravo Sony to be brave to bring innovative products (SLT DSLRs, FF RX1, pocketable RX100 with great picture quality)- Innovation is good for all of us and other companies should learn... howgh

EH? The main complaint here is about the mismatch between a digital camera and the name of the award. The camera is clearly not an invention. Sony might have made some invention (e.g. patented inventions) in the camera - I dont know. But ... the camera is no invention. The digital camera was invented a long time ago. Formally, due to patents, by Kodak.

Well its paid for itself for me and it was just my point and shoot. the latest issue of Top Gear Magazine NZ has a feature in it that I shot with my dslr cameras but also starts with a full bleed double page spread shot I took with my RX100 taken from a Hexacopter. The 20mp file in a very light camera meant I could get an aerial shot of an Audi S6 from a hexacopter without having to lift a heavier dslr. The magazine liked it so much they made it the opening spread.

"Inventions" of the year, huh? Ok, transistor was an invention, not only of a year, but of a half of the century. Nuclear power, space flight, etc. - those are inventions, if you ask me. Even a USB (Universal Serial Bus) is a bigger invention than most of those in their list.My point is that real inventions are rare and significant. You can't really get 50 awesome inventions a year. I'd take such lists with a pinch of salt.

what if you could take a high resolution photograph of what you saw with your eyes, by just double blinking your eyelids? Without having to carry a camera at all? Maybe through your contact lenses. Well that is nearly certainly where we are heading. Those who think the path to photographic salvation is a two kilogram Distagon Planar attached to a monstrosity, are mistaken.

Sony is inching us closer. RX100 held in one hand with a wrist strap ( Now no self respecting DSLR shooter will ever talk about wrist straps will they?) is like a high resolution third eye. How important is then, this lowly term '' pocketability''?

I totally understand studio shooters and what they say, but to many people, pocketability will be the essence and definition of photography in the very near future.

now - it is certainly an innovation and I could use this camera for film, but I've got a better film Camera: Sony HX9V, 24mm, In-Cam-ND filter, etc.Photo for I would rather take a better camera than the RX100. Not all of what fits in a pants or shirt pocket, is also a very good camera - the RX100 is a decent camera, but no more